There is only a nature article about "low carbon emission" (Was: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans)

I didn't find yet a paper that proofs "cheapness"
related to humans, only a paper about "low carbon
emission" related to humans:
 > The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
 > are lower for AI than for humans
 > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
And that costs go down is mentioned only
in a vague tweet, even not related to humans:
 > Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
 > query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
 > 2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
 > decrease 10x per year
 > https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
So I wrote:
 > Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
"low carbon emission" can be an indicative of low
price. But not necessarely. It could be also an
indicative of "green" production of AI. And maybe
the problem is that humans are not that "green",
it could be easier to make a computing center "green",
than a city full of humans. Also the nature
article could be some fake news propaganda.
So still waiting for more information...

In some periods in history,
the price of oil is such,
that people pay
to have it hauled away.
 So, it's not so much that AI is cheaper than people,
though it is a great source of advantange,
as that there's a great embarrassment of riches
of availability of computing resources,
what's set the price point so low.
 Then, the idea is that people can afford their own agents,
on their own computing resources, not so much as that
it's cheap for the industry to offer that as a service,
to anybody, because the agent belongs to them,
and it's inscrutable and so on and worthless,
in terms of what value it takes.
 So, "the cost", is plenty high, "unregulated AI".